The Data Body: Power Dynamics in Virtuality

Avatar Lilith

The phenomenologically passive nature of a virtual 3D object elicits a conversation of who is in control, who is being controlled, and who gets to make decisions about these bodies? It is important to understand how meaningful interactions between bodies elicit conversations of power and agency, and how we can navigate a future to transcend the barriers put in place by dominant societal structures. When we compare online experience with data from our communal perspectives on human nature and bias, it is evident that these biases are amplified in virtual space. For example, in VR chat, virtual spaces, and online forums, all of these provide a level of abstraction that gives a semblance of anonymity and lack of consequences. Specifically, with avatars or 3D scans of human bodies, we forget that the likeness of an individual that is projected onto an object is literally meant to be controlled by a developer. Who gets to control these bodies, and how do we protect the agency of whoever's body this is? Not only does this reflect our biases in physical space, but it also provides potential for more surveillance. The interaction between Surveillance, Knowledge, Bias, Control and Power are essential in framing our understanding of technological futures. Our biases and politics are emphasized and facilitated by not only the level of abstraction from reality afforded by virtual space, but also through perpetual systems of control through surveilling corporations.

The temptation of self actualizing through designing your own virtual image presents a problem: the extent to which the structural asymmetry of knowledge between corporations and products (people), is far greater than our ability to maintain agency of expression. Through inserting ourselves and our identity online through avatars, social media, and online presence, we provide information in exchange for our perceived freedom of expression. We unveil a little bit of data and security to receive comfort and convenience. However, the extent of this knowledge is not generally known to the public. We don’t truly understand how much of our personal data is being surveilled. We are blind to it, so we are comfortable sharing a little “exhaust data.”

Understanding this concept in relation to avatars is important to understand how readily available our data will be embedded in our online footprint. In solely the context of realistic and accurate avatars, embedded in these 3d objects are facial information, emotional information, body measurements, just to name a few. The afforded information from the avatar is not just a one-way street. If we do not have the right protections and legislation underlining our rights and agency to our bodies, corporations could potentially re-purpose our virtual bodies and use them for advertisements, deep fakes, promotions, and falsified media. This is just a small view into the potential exploitations of these bodies. An avatar can be “hacked” by anyone with a computer. All this information contained inside a 3D model being provided in virtual space is just coordinate points that can be downloaded and recreated in any 3D software.

3D platforms and marketplaces for buying and downloading assets are curated by and reflect the culture and dynamics behind that technology. Most default assets are centered around whiteness and heteronormative ideals of what a body should look like. In places like Character Creator, and DAZ Studio, the default character templates tend to be all white characters, male or female. The limited body type profiles show that you are either “Strong,” “Heavy,” or “Jody” (a default female figure). The default movements for testing motion capture all center around guns, unsurprisingly. The female and male poses are vastly different, with female options such as “enticing,” sitting on the floor with one leg up, and standing with shrugged shoulders, while the male poses are standing with broad shoulders, and other powerful poses. On the flip side, Unreal Engines Metahumans are diverse characters with detailed likeness customization tools. The default character for Metahuman’s motion capture project, which allows the user to control the face and body movements of a character, is a Black woman named Ada. What does it mean when anyone can control very realistic digital marginalized identities in any context? Specifically, what happens if the puppeteer is not part of that community and speaks on behalf of that identity? This is a recipe for exploitation across all mediums.

Just like the invention of the photograph, the Avatar inserted a fundamental shift in the veritability of the medium that defines its own contextual validity. It created an additional modal shift in the way we understand our place in the world, and how we interact with our identities. Just like the photograph, we again come to the apex of the human desire to capture our identities and essence in a modality that extends beyond the body. If the body is a reflection of our identity, and our identity is a vessel that inherits control, how can we maintain our autonomy and agency over our bodies within constraints in the age of corporate corporeal commodity?

As we move into the future of newly manipulated identities and shifting forms of online presence, so too will the culture of corporate (see: corporeal) surveillance. Understanding the fluid basis of surpassing the corporeal body, providing defense against the passage of time will deepen our understanding of humanity and connection. However, as we adapt and forge new forms of existence, so too will surveillance find more pathways to infiltrate the omnipresent links in our shifting worlds. Dynamic mutations of identities insert a dimensional shift into our relationship with ourselves and each other. If our interaction is coded in the manipulation and stealthy data sourcing of our bodies, how can we exist in a future that holds truth and veritability as a pillar of society? How can we be true to ourselves and each other?

At what cost does the ease at which we create, modify, and mummify ourselves return to only compromise our agency in the way we move through the world? It is not inherent in the medium that this danger expresses itself. We are already facing infringement of our democracy through data monetization within corporations like Facebook, Instagram, and Google. If these companies believe that data is knowledge, and such it is that knowledge is power, we too can arm ourselves in the fight for our freedom of a secure and safe online existence. By understanding our place within the surveillance capitalist framework, we can use information and knowledge to our power.